Re: Light Postulate Invalidated

From: EjP (nospam_at_hackers.are.bad)
Date: 09/07/04 

Date: Tue, 07 Sep 2004 14:16:57 -0500

Cadwgan Gedrych wrote:

> Surprisingly, simple observation without measurements can
> disprove the basis of SR (aka Einstein's light postulate).
>
> Consider any two entities which are on a collision course,
> as shown below:
>
> E(a)-------------><--------------------E(b)
>
> The location of their meeting point depends only upon their
> relative motion, and this depends on their individual speeds,
> as the following analysis shows:
>
> Suppose the two entities E(a) and E(b) always leave frame A
> points (0,0,0) and (10,0,0) respectively at the same time (per
> frame A's clocks at the given points).

OK, but realize that it will not in general be simulataneous
in other frames.

? E(a) and E(b) will of
> course always move toward each other so that they eventually
> collide. Now suppose that after one such collision point is
> marked on frame A, E(a) and E(b) return to their starting
> points, and again leave on a collision course, except this
> time E(a) moves at a different speed. This change in entity
> E(a)'s speed will change the location (wrt frame A) of the
> entities' collision point.

Yes.

> Indeed, a change in either or both
> of the entities' speeds will make their collision point shift.
>

You've taken a lot of space to express a pretty simple point.
Please move on.

> Clearly, any shift in the location of the collision point
> indicates a change in the entities' relative motion.
>

...or point of origin, or the time they started (both of
which would be different in a different frame of reference).

> Just as clearly, the conclusion just given holds regardless
> of the physical nature of the entities.
>
> For example, the conclusion holds in the case where entity
> E(a) is an inertial observer, and entity E(b) is a light ray.
>

Except that now you're "frame jumping". By making E(a) an
"intertial observer", you're bringing another frame
of reference into the problem.

> In this case, if the observer changes his speed during each
> iteration of the experiment, then the shifting meeting point
> provides direct visual proof that the motional relationship
> (aka the relative motion) between the light ray and the
> observer has changed.

Not at all. As said before, in the inertial frame defined
by E(a), the source representing E(b) would start at
a different location and time.

>
> In other words, the shifting meeting point proves that light's
> one-way speed varies with observer speed, thereby disproving
> Einstein's sole basis for special relativity, i.e., his light
> postulate.
>

Again, no.

> Since Einstein's definition of clock synchronization was based
> on his light postulate, we see that Einstein's clocks are not
> correctly related temporally.
>
> This means that Einstein's transformation equations are wrong
> because his clocks control the values of t, t', v, and c.
>

All you've demonstrated are your own misconceptions.

Next time, try understanding the material first.

> (...snip flawed derivation...)

-E

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Physical wavelength vs relative wavelength
    ... After collision they will rebound ... at 50 mph each in that frame. ... all we know is the relative speeds to each other.. ... I specified the center of momentum frame. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Light Postulate Invalidated
    ... as long as "meeting point" and "individual speeds" are ... | measured wrt a given inertial frame. ... Now suppose that after one such collision point is ... 2AB/= c to be a universal constant- the velocity of light in empty ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Physical wavelength vs relative wavelength
    ... After collision they will rebound ... at 50 mph each in that frame. ... all we know is the relative speeds to each other.. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Light Postulate Invalidated
    ... >frame A's clocks at the given points). ... Now suppose that after one such collision point is ... >of the entities' speeds will make their collision point shift. ... >indicates a change in the entities' relative motion. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Physical wavelength vs relative wavelength
    ... After collision they will rebound ... at 50 mph each in that frame. ... all we know is the relative speeds to each other.. ...
    (sci.physics)
Quantcast